Electronic Data Systems Ltd v. Hanbury & Anor [2001] UKEAT 128_00_2903 (29 March 2001)

Electronic Data Systems Ltd v. Hanbury & Anor [2001] UKEAT 128_00_2903 (29 March 2001)

The applicant was employed by BSB under a contract for services within s82(1) SDA and was supplied to EDS as a contract worker under s9 SDA. There was no contract between the applicant and EDS. The Tribunal's finding to the contrary was in error. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the sex discrimination complaint against both respondents.

Citation
[2001] UKEAT 128_00_2903
Parties
Appellant: Electronic Data Systems Ltd; First Respondent: Miss Hanbury; Second Respondent: Brook Street (UK) T/A Brook Street Bureau
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal Against Preliminary Hearing Decision
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed by consent; Tribunal's decision substituted.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Employment Status, Contract Worker, Employment Agency, Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Employment Status Contract Worker Employment Agency Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Electronic Data Systems Ltd

Appellant

Miss Hanbury

First Respondent

Brook Street (UK) T/A Brook Street Bureau

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal Against Preliminary Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was an employee of either BSB or EDS under s230(1) ERA 1996
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was an employee under s82(1) Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was a contract worker supplied to EDS as principal under s9 SDA 1975

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was employed by BSB under a contract for services within s82(1) SDA and was supplied to EDS as a contract worker under s9 SDA. There was no contract between the applicant and EDS. The Tribunal's finding to the contrary was in error. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the sex discrimination complaint against both respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed by consent; Tribunal's decision substituted.

Orders

  • Declaration that the applicant was employed by BSB under a s82 contract
  • Declaration that the applicant was a contract worker supplied to EDS as principal by BSB for the purposes of s9 SDA